I live in a no fault state. Is there any advantage to getting uninsured/underinsured coverage?
Free Insurance Comparison
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
Asked July 27, 2010
No fault insurance and uninsured/underinsured motorist protection are not the same thing, but they do serve very similar purposes. In a no fault state, each person's insurance pays for their claims. Uninsured motorist coverage uses your insurance to pay claims only if the other person does not have adequate coverage. You would not file the claim with your insurance company until the other person's company has responded to it and paid their obligated portion. Since you are already filing with your insurance company in a no fault state, having the other coverage would be redundant.
Uninsured/Underinsured motorist insurance is used in a situation where you are involved in an accident and the at fault driver did not have any insurance, or what they did have was not enough to cover the damages. This type of coverage is required as part of the minimum allowed by law in some states, but it is not required at all in others.
No fault insurance is intended to get accident victims the treatment they need right away without any contention about whose insurance company will pay. In states that have no fault insurance, you file your claim with your own insurance company and the insurance companies negotiate who has responsibility between themselves. Your claim is not held back by whether the other person had insurance, or whether their limits were too low. Your own limits will apply, along with your own deductible.
Another item worth considering is that the mostly commonly disputed car insurance claim is one involving uninsured/underinsured drivers. Insurance companies are wary of such claims and will delay the settlement with extensive research, demanding incontrovertible proof of liability before they are willing to settle.
Answered July 27, 2010 by Anonymous